![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Something that several people have expressed in their comment on a previous post is that making a comment like "goddamned Catholics" is somehow out of line. It's out of line because it's disrespectful.
I walk for half an hour, morning and evening, these days, on the way to and from work, and that gives me some thinking time. Yesterday evening I was thinking about this issue of respect. Particularly respect of religions.
In a manner that I think the ancient Greeks used, I'm going to present this as a dialogue, because this is often how I think. Some people may recognise the names; they're not necessarily what those characters would think, but they're close and convenient voices.
Arc of Fire: Explain to me why I should respect a religion I have no part of, and whose tenets I do not hold true.
Calpurnius: Because that religion does good and useful things.
Arc of Fire: But that religion also does bad and less than useful things.
Calpurnius: Those are the actions of certain practioners of the religion, not the religion itself.
Arc of Fire: So I am free not to respect the individual practitioners, as long as I continue to respect the religion?
Calpurnius: Yes.
Arc of Fire: Is this in general or in particular?
Calpurnius: In general.
Arc of Fire: So what happens if a religion works on the basis of slavery and sacrifice? Must it too be respected? Or one that holds that the world is secretly governed by pigeons?
Calpurnius: No, a religion's practices must fall into certain accepted categories of behaviour and sense before it requires respect.
Arc of Fire: With regard to the practices of the religion under discussion, do its practices fall into these accepted categories?
Calpurnius: I believe so.
Arc of Fire: What happens if I do not believe that the categories are acceptable?
Calpurnius: Can you give an example?
Arc of Fire: If the religion holds that its practices must be enshrined in law and applied to all people, regardless of their own beliefs?
Calpurnius: The religion under discussion does not not hold that - other related religions do.
Arc of Fire: It is nowhere written that it holds that, but if you examine the histories as I have, you will see that its efforts for centuries have been concentrated on making that the case.
Calpurnius: That can be seen.
Arc of Fire: So what basis is there for respect?
The discussion trails off here, mainly because Arc has Calpurnius backed into a corner (and this is where the characters become just voices in my head, because the real Arc would never argue with Calpurnius on religion, much less win).
But it seems to me that what people are saying is that I must respect a religion because it is a religion, and I don't accept that. Nobody can make me respect Scientology, and you'll have the greatest of difficulty in getting me to respect certain more odd sects of the Religions of the Book. Yet I respect the personal religion that certain people I know have, and some of these people call themselves Christians.
I do respect the right of all people to hold their own beliefs. I'm not challenging that. But discuss, please. I'm not arguing one side over the other; I just want to know what other people think - should any and every religion be respected simply because it is a religion? Because in my mind at least, I can respect it because it's a religion, or I can respect it because it is right - and of course I do not believe that any religion other than my own is right.
I walk for half an hour, morning and evening, these days, on the way to and from work, and that gives me some thinking time. Yesterday evening I was thinking about this issue of respect. Particularly respect of religions.
In a manner that I think the ancient Greeks used, I'm going to present this as a dialogue, because this is often how I think. Some people may recognise the names; they're not necessarily what those characters would think, but they're close and convenient voices.
Arc of Fire: Explain to me why I should respect a religion I have no part of, and whose tenets I do not hold true.
Calpurnius: Because that religion does good and useful things.
Arc of Fire: But that religion also does bad and less than useful things.
Calpurnius: Those are the actions of certain practioners of the religion, not the religion itself.
Arc of Fire: So I am free not to respect the individual practitioners, as long as I continue to respect the religion?
Calpurnius: Yes.
Arc of Fire: Is this in general or in particular?
Calpurnius: In general.
Arc of Fire: So what happens if a religion works on the basis of slavery and sacrifice? Must it too be respected? Or one that holds that the world is secretly governed by pigeons?
Calpurnius: No, a religion's practices must fall into certain accepted categories of behaviour and sense before it requires respect.
Arc of Fire: With regard to the practices of the religion under discussion, do its practices fall into these accepted categories?
Calpurnius: I believe so.
Arc of Fire: What happens if I do not believe that the categories are acceptable?
Calpurnius: Can you give an example?
Arc of Fire: If the religion holds that its practices must be enshrined in law and applied to all people, regardless of their own beliefs?
Calpurnius: The religion under discussion does not not hold that - other related religions do.
Arc of Fire: It is nowhere written that it holds that, but if you examine the histories as I have, you will see that its efforts for centuries have been concentrated on making that the case.
Calpurnius: That can be seen.
Arc of Fire: So what basis is there for respect?
The discussion trails off here, mainly because Arc has Calpurnius backed into a corner (and this is where the characters become just voices in my head, because the real Arc would never argue with Calpurnius on religion, much less win).
But it seems to me that what people are saying is that I must respect a religion because it is a religion, and I don't accept that. Nobody can make me respect Scientology, and you'll have the greatest of difficulty in getting me to respect certain more odd sects of the Religions of the Book. Yet I respect the personal religion that certain people I know have, and some of these people call themselves Christians.
I do respect the right of all people to hold their own beliefs. I'm not challenging that. But discuss, please. I'm not arguing one side over the other; I just want to know what other people think - should any and every religion be respected simply because it is a religion? Because in my mind at least, I can respect it because it's a religion, or I can respect it because it is right - and of course I do not believe that any religion other than my own is right.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
Religions were created by Man to create the basics of society and community. In that particular use yes I think it should be respected. Everyone has the right to believe in *anything* they want. What I don't want to respect is people who try to pull me into their beliefs because then, *they* are the ones who don't respect me.
Now here's a question: Is ignoring a religion a mark of disrespect???
From:
no subject
Now here's a question: Is ignoring a religion a mark of disrespect???
If it was then surely all atheists ans agnostics would be in the situation where they don't respect anyone or their religion.
Personally I take the view of "live and let live", or to put it another way...I'm an Atheist/agnostic/do not believe in the worshiping of divine powers. My family is Roman catholic (for the most part) and a good lot of my friends are pagan or wiccan. My view in regardds to them is "You are of X religion. You hold Y practices. I accept this because you are my friend. And I will always accept this as long as you do not try to impose your beliefs on me"
Now, I'm aware that this is quite a naive point of view but its one that's worked for me so far, and has actually worked in "religious discussions" also.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I can say a lot more about the effect of Catholicism on Ireland and Europe, and how I resent that, but it tends rapidly into the territory of "I can blame the Roman Catholic Church for everything that went wrong in my life ever!" and similar hysterics.
So, to answer your question, if Scientology had had the effect on Ireland that Catholicism has had, I would indeed say such things, and probably far worse.
From:
Re:
And as for the first part of your argument - Christ, are you even reading the words you wrote? You honestly can't see where *Give out about doctor, give out about doctor, give out about doctor.... "Bloody Catholics!"* might give someone the impression that you were implicitly blaming the doctor's Catholicism? It's a fairly obvious link Drew. Just try reading the post from the POV of someone that's not you, as it can be very hard for us to see meanings in something we wrote that we did not intentionally place there.
And I repeat once more, the doctor's going to a healthy 25-year-old "Well, I will carry out the procedure, but I really do feel 25 is too young for such drastic action. Are you really sure about this?" or words to that effect has *nothing* whatsoever to do with whether or not she is Catholic or even - get this - what bloody religion the country has operated under for however long. It is because she's a bloody doctor and it is her responsibilty to make sure any patient of hers know exactly what they are getting into, and is fully aware of any and all consequences, both for their future health and happiness, and her future freedom
From:
no subject
Quite possibly. I, personally, seem on self-examination to respect Buddhism. But I respect it for its practitioners, for the most part, not for itself. The whole of Buddhism starts off with the first of the Four Noble Truths, Life is suffering, and Buddhism and I part paths there.
But Calpurnius above holds that one should respect the religion, not the practitioners - because if it's based on the actions of the practitioners, then a certain religion around here that people seem to want me to respect is not going to be getting any.
From:
no subject
Respect should be held for individuals, and those who have done good work in the name of a religion should garner some level of respect for that religion. However someone should not automatically get respect purely because they are a follower of a faith.
Of course titles bring preconceptions. If someone introduces someone to me with the added comment of "They're a Christian" I'm going to have a different reaction to if someone is introduced to me with the added comment of "They're a Scientologist." I leave it as an exercise to the reader to decide what that difference might be :)
Does that make more sense?
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Take abortion as a nice inflamatory example, it's a religious, moral and political issue. For some reason it seems to be okay to disrespect someone's view on it if they argue the moral or political aspects but not the religious ones. Another example, I'm not allowed say "Gods of thunder?.... yeahhhhhhh...... riiiight..." but I can say "Anarchy eh?.... what a crock of shite".
You don't have to respect someone's beliefs (whatever the hell they are) for any other reason than you like the person, and even then you owe it to them to disagree if you think they're full of it.
From:
no subject
Ah no, you can go right ahead with that. But I'll laugh at you next time you're stuck in a thunderstorm. :)
From:
no subject
I don't agree with the statement that you have to respect any religion. In my mind, it's more like "if you emotively, vocally, publicly disrespect a religion, you will seem to disrespect everyone who believes in it". I understand that that wasn't what you meant, but it comes across like someone saying.
I want the priests who abused children, brothers who beat kids in school, biships who break their vows etc to be singled out as BAD Catholics, different to the norm, rather than for the stable, normal members to be singled out as exceptions. I want to be covered by the blanket term "Catholics" because I believe most of the ones I know have beliefs that I agree with.
From:
no subject
I was tending towards the notion that I should have said yesterday "Catholicism", not "Catholics". From what you're saying, that would have been worse? Or just the same?
And is it ok to hold that opinion yourself, just not saying it? That seems dishonest, somehow...
From:
no subject
If we were argueing a point about religion, then yes, I think it wouldn't have made it all so emotive. Then it's a discussion about a religion and religious doctorine. And I would have replied with "well, I don't think it's got to do with religion" etc etc.
Is it dishonest to have an opinion but not disclose it? I don't believe so. If I think someone's fat, I don't have to tell them. If they ask me, I may give my opinion but I'd want to be 100% sure that I know that I'm talking about.
From:
no subject
Fair point. However, the people who want me to be respectful to other religions didn't define things any more precisely. I think for myself, of your five divisions above, I'll end up considering practices and individuals and leaving aside the others as much as I can (although it's very hard to leave aside Catholic institutions in Ireland, or Hindu institutions in India).
Beliefs, in my opinion, should be respected as long as they do not result in pathological behaviour. You don't know what train of experiences and reasoning led to a person's holding the beliefs they hold, and until and unless you do, it is despicable to hold them in contempt: you don't have all the evidence before you.
I think I need to define respect here, too. It seems more and more that respect is something like "not laugh openly at", which seems wrong - surely it should be something deeper?
And to use Arc's thing from above, what if the belief (still not causing pathological behaviour) is that pigeons are the secret rulers of the world? Should that be respected? Being nice to the pigeons doesn't seem pathological to me, anyway, but the belief is still, well, daft.
From:
r-e-s-p-e-c-t
given that, i do not like or admire any aspects of catholicism. or any other organized religion.* because of the nature of my problems with organized religion (mindless adherence, basing one's spirituality on what anyone else tells them to think, loss of individuality, the need for hierophants, attitudes towards women in many cases, etc...) i'm going to have a hard time with anyone who adheres to those religions, because if they can follow them wholeheartedly, then there's some basic difference in how ze and i see the world, which will probably result in somewhat oppositional positions on things.
that said, i will of course give someone the chance to prove me wrong - maybe someone calls zirself a "catholic" because they grew up that way, are comfortable in the church setting, etc etc, but zir beliefs really reflect a more buddhist or hindu or "pagan" philosophy of religion. because that person is more open minded, thinks more for zirself and has a well-thought-out, coherent belief system, yes, i will respect zir. i might not respect those beliefs, might even think they're silly, but i know that zie has really put time & effort into it on zir own
am i capable of respecting people despite their religions? yes. do i respect "religions" in general? hell, no. there are one or two that i think have a really right-on attitude and find most or all of the practitioners to be really nifty & interesting people.
now this might start to make me sound bigoted, but i'm not saying "i hate everyone who is x" or even that i think anything of anyone who is x, y or z. in the case of religion, i feel it's a conscious choice people are making about their lives. people don't chose to be born white, or poor, or male, but they do choose what they believe and how they practice those beliefs.
*there are some religions that i wouldn't really put into the category "organized" - those that don't have any requirements or regulations and don't have any hierarchical structure. there's 1 or 2.
From:
Re: r-e-s-p-e-c-t
What a complete load of insulting crap. Christ... school does that to people quicker and more efficiently. Exactly what religions are you talking about that demands unquestioning obedience and robs people of their identity?
I've not been a part of organised religion for...ooh... seven or eight years now... and you know, it never made a difference to the fact that I am a beautiful unique snowflake.....
From:
no subject
I'm different than you are. While I knew that you were joking from the start, I didn't agree with the fact that you said what you did, because it stemmed from a situation in which religion might not even be in play. (I'd automatically assume that the doctor was simply concerned about your age.) Further, I just... don't like to consciously offend people, particularly by making fun of beliefs that may help hold them together. When you said, in jest, "goddamned Catholics," it hurt my feelings, because several Catholics have been extraordinarily good to me and I don't want them thought of like that. Several Catholics have also been bad.
I don't know. I didn't take part in yesterday's discussion because I didn't feel like lecturing or being publicly oversensitive or anything, and I know that we do hold dissimilar theological beliefs. One of mine is that just about anything that falls within certain moral bounds is valid, just maybe not for me. You can see in my journal that I've been struggling with trying to define just what it is I do believe. I believe that the Catholic Church has been off of the path it should be on since shortly after the start of Christianity, and I believe that the Crusades, the Inquisition, were terrible things, but those were manly, not godly, as faith is supposed to be. Sometimes I think that, were I a Christian, I would be happiest as a Catholic. Sometimes I think I'm crazy. I just... I wouldn't joke about "goddamn Catholics" any more than I would joke about "goddamn Democrats" or "goddamn Irish" or "goddamn women" or anything. It's just not nice, no matter what I really think. Now, there are times and places to reveal those thought processes, but one can still be tactful.
And I'm a hypocrite, because I think that anyone who listens to country music has several brain cells missing, and have spouted my musical opinions freely.
From:
no subject
(I think as a general thing it's useful to see collectives as having an identity-- being an entitty-- potentially separate from the individuals that make it up. Not just the "organized" parts of organized religions, but corporations, political parties, etc. Sometimes as an entity a group may actually espouse things that none of its components would espouse individually, even.)
Using my classical pagan definition that what one does matters far more than what one thinks or feels, it seems to me that you have an etiquette question here more than a philosophical or moral one. In this case, "respect for religion" means "Don't insult in openly unless you're prepared for people's knickers to get in a twist." This seems like practical advice. :)
From:
no subject
The point that makes it messy is that the *people* you respect may have that religion, that faith, so integral to who they are, that it is disrespecting them. Am I in favor of the Crusades, or the coverup of sexual abuse by the clergy, or other ways in which people of my church have fouled up? No. Do I love the church as I love my life? Yes, because it's the body of believers, the body of Christ. And Christ told me to love. Do I wish that the false clergy and liars that twist my church could be expunged? Heck yes.
You're not obligated to respect a religion, and I can understand that some of the actions of my church, especially as it is represented locally to you, may get under your skin. And they aren't all right. But there's more of us who aren't using the church as a political vehicle.
From:
no subject
But yes, what you wrote reminded me of how much the Church really is a family, with all that implies - it's got people in it with whom one does simply NOT share all values, or indeed interests or much else, sometimes. Speaking as someone who clashes horrifically with my family on all sorts of issues, it's been a salutory education for me to see how it's possible to actually still have fellowship with people EVEN IF you have such massive disagreements on profound moral issues.
From:
no subject
Not just even- especially. One of the prerogatives I believe in as a Christian is to be at peace with all my brothers and sisters- "with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another through love, striving to preserve the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace: one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call..."
I love that passage. Eph 4:2-4. Hoo.
From:
no subject
That's amazing. I must look for it.
I really appreciate you posting these Biblical citations.
From:
no subject
You know so many nourishing verses ... I know that the best way to learn such things is to sit down with the Bible for hours a day, which I do try to do - plodding through Genesis onwards and everything - but it must be said, it IS rather intimidating and bewildering to be confronted with scores of Books and not know where to start.
So what I want to ask is: in your experience, have you perhaps heard of any really good resources - web or otherwise - for somebody interested in really getting to grips with the wonder that is scripture? I suppose.. guides, or anything, really... at the moment I just sort of lurch around it randomly.
Hopeful,
S
:)
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Best wishes,
S
From:
no subject
Shortly after, I went to live in Ireland for six months (which explains my connection to these totally awesome people here on LJ). While there, I would go home from work and either read C.S. Lewis, write my own meditations/poetry/thoughts, or read the New Testament. I made a goal out of completing the New Testament while I was out there, sometimes writing meditations on certain passages and such. Often, I'd pray before going in to read so that I was getting out of it what God wanted me to get out of it. Sometimes nothing struck me at all. Sometimes I'd get whopped over the head.
Since I had a New American Bible, I had tons of footnotes and cross-references to other verses, so I'd often end up wandering around, tracing back verses and finding out why Paul or Jesus said such and such a thing, and how it was based on Old Testament scripture. Since then, the Bible has been a much more interconnected narrative for me, a real love letter. It's easier for me to remember passages since then, or at least the general feel of certain books. Ephesians is a letter devoted to the concerns of the body of Christ, and how believers should act towards each other. Paul's letter to the Romans is the first letter and the most apologetic of all of them. Corinthians gets into the nitty gritty of certain issues. And so on.
My suggestion to you is to just get in and read straight through the New Testament at least once. Give yourself breaks with the Psalms- they are such beautiful poetry. One final thought is that I know a number of people who will read Proverbs in a month, since there are 30 or 31 chapters. You read one chapter a day, and you've digested one heck of a book of wisdom. (Speaking of which, the Book of Wisdom also rocks the party that rocks the party.)
Hope this helps! And feel free to ask anything or discuss anything about it- it keeps me going back. :) (and my AIM name is Iresprite K, if you're ever on there)
From:
no subject
My suggestion to you is to just get in and read straight through the New Testament at least once. Give yourself breaks with the Psalms- they are such beautiful poetry. One final thought is that I know a number of people who will read Proverbs in a month, since there are 30 or 31 chapters. You read one chapter a day, and you've digested one heck of a book of wisdom. (Speaking of which, the Book of Wisdom also rocks the party that rocks the party.
Grins - goodie! I've never read Wisdom! I do have a Bible with the Deuterocanonicals in though, so I will look at it now.
I definitely want to look at the New Testament, as you have said. I think I need to find a Bible with masses of footnotes etc. I love the Bible I have - the NRSV SPiritual Formation Bible, with glorious marginal lectio divina prompts on every page. It makes for a very prayerful experience even reading five verses. So that is good, but it would also be great to build a sense of how the texts all interact and relate.
Hope this helps! And feel free to ask anything or discuss anything about it- it keeps me going back. :)
Already twice today I have thought: "Argh, I wish I could ask iresprite if off the top of his head he has a chapter in the Bible that I should read re ." So I will take you up on that :)
From:
no subject
From:
Musings
I'm not sure that always follows. I mean, I am a very devout person, and attend a relatively conventional Anglo-Catholic Church (as well as practicing ZaZen and revering Pagan traditions), and yet I definitely can't say that I think religions that are not my own are not necessarily right. Even Christian theology is starting to have room for that thought ....
Islam, for example, I know relatively little about, though I have been researching it more lately, but although it's not my angle on the world I definitely still respect it. Especially because it was the flowerbed in which Sufi contemplative mysticism began, which can only be a wonderful thing. I respect that wholeheartyedly, and Islam helped make it possible, so I have a lot of time for Islam as a result.
I see what you mean about scientology though. I can't say I respect THAT. And I have some trouble respecting the more rabidly televangical versions of Christianity, for example.
I think when it comes down to it, I guess it's a "by their fruits shall ye know them' kind of situation. Not an ideal or clear comment, probably. But I guess the best one can do with it all... which takes us all back to where we started :)
It is tricky, you're right.
From:
no subject
First we need to restrict. The body being referred to,I assume, is the Roman Catholic Church and not the other Catholic churches (there are several)
As to the matter of vasectomies..does the teaching of the RCC make sense given the reasons behind it.
Well..why does the RCC not believe in vasectomies?
Because they believe in
A>the sanctity of life
B>the sacred nature of procreation
C>to commit an offense against the prior two statements would be what the RCC considers an offense against the gift of procreation that G_d has given us
D>vasectomy interferes with B
thus vasectomy is wrong
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
However, I can respect individuals who are Catholic. I have Catholic friends, and a good chunk of my family is Catholic. But they embrace the good ideals of the religion, rather than the dictates of the church.
From:
no subject
Actually, I don't think Arc has Calpurnius backed into a corner. Every individual and organisation would prefer that the world acted according to its own morality - I know I would. Similarly, every individual and organisation wants to have a nice, comfortable place in the world. Members of the Catholic Church throughout the ages have acted in accordance with this desire when they interacted with the temporal powers, but done more than attempt to persuade - no more than the rest of us do, really.